Click here to view this decoder and associated tables in Acrobat Reader

The bridge program provides federal assistance to repair or replace aging bridge infrastructure. Even though over 80,000 bridges are still dangerously unsafe, bridge repair remains a low priority in many states, and billions of dollars in bridge program funding has been diverted to other uses.

The bridge program dates to 1978, when Congress greatly expanded funding to address a bridge system that was rapidly deteriorating and threatening public safety. As recently as 1992, 1 in 5 bridges nationwide were classified as structurally deficient*. The bridge program is designed to address this threat head-on; each state receives funds based on its share of the total cost to repair or replace all deficient bridges nationwide. Thus all states have access to the funds necessary to make essential repairs.

Bridge Safety a Low Priority in Many States

Although Congress has allocated $29.3 billion to the bridge program over the last ten fiscal years, many bridges continue to have chronic safety problems. Bridge quality has improved overall since ISTEA was enacted, but even today, over 83,000 bridges – 14% – are structurally deficient. Off-system (local) bridges are especially troubling, with deficiency rates over twice that of their on-system (federal) counterparts.

A deeper look reveals significant differences among states in bridge improvement rates. While a number of states have made significant progress on bridge repair, several states have made dangerously little progress. 12 states actually have more structurally deficient bridges today than they did a decade ago.

Why has bridge safety declined in some states while it improves in others? Although the bridge program is designed to put federal dollars where they’re most needed, many states fail to take full advantage of the funding available to them. Overall, the states have spent only 73% of the bridge funding allocated by Congress over the last decade—the lowest obligation rate of TEA-21’s five core programs. And the trend is getting worse; states have used only 67% of bridge funds allocated during the first four years of TEA-21. The result is that billions of bridge program dollars—nearly $8 billion since ISTEA’s enactment—have been diverted to other programs and priorities.

How States Short-Change Bridge Repair

States that under-fund bridge safety do so in a variety of ways. Most take advantage of a loophole in the TEA-21 funding mechanism resulting from the discrepancy between state apportionments, which are specified by program (Interstate Maintenance, Bridge, etc.), and obligation authority, which is not. As detailed in STPP’s decoder, “The Transportation Funding Loophole,” it is left to states to decide how to allocate overall budget dollars among various programs. 

Often, states use their discretion to fully fund traditional highway building programs while under-funding critical repair needs like the bridge program. Several such states are ones that the bridge program’s funding formula is designed to help the most.

Another diversion technique involves the Discretionary Bridge Program, which provides bridge funding on a project-specific basis. To be eligible for discretionary funds, a state must not have transferred any of its apportioned bridge funds to other uses. But some states use the loophole described above to divert bridge dollars elsewhere without losing eligibility for discretionary funds. For example, in FY 2000-2001, Illinois received over $12 million in discretionary bridge funding, even though it obligated only 52% of its regular apportionment during that same time, and shifted millions to other programs. By under-obligating its bridge program, the state was able to “transfer” its bridge funds elsewhere and still receive discretionary funds without incurring any penalty.

A state-by-state comparison shows the difference between states that use their bridge program dollars and those that don’t. 

As shown in the graph to the right, the ten states with the best bridge conditions have spent 82% of their federally apportioned bridge funds since 1992. By contrast, the ten states with the worst bridges have spent only 67% of their bridge funds since 1992. For example, Pennsylvania, with nearly 25% of its bridges deemed structurally deficient, has left unused or transferred over $1.2 billion in bridge program funding (see Table 1 in the pdf version).

But while Pennsylvania is the most striking example of bridge under-funding, most states are guilty to some degree. Overall, states have neglected nearly $8 billion apportioned for bridge repair, choosing instead to focus on new construction projects and other priorities. This shift in funding dollars violates the intent and spirit of the original legislation, which was to allocate bridge funding based on where it was most needed. 

Click here to view this decoder and associated tables in Acrobat Reader
(Table 1: Bridge Program Apportionments and Obligations by State)
(Table 2: Structurally Deficient Bridges by Federal-Aid System)